wow. u really feel this way? libs are the ones who are bullies? poor people are entitled? idk what to say, joe. but i still love you

I didn't say poor people were entitled in that post brotha. And yes, I do think liberals are bullies. I think they feel differently, but how else do you explain a group of people that constantly wants to use government force to tell other people what to do?

To use a very popular example, single-payer health care. Liberals want this because they don't trust insurance companies, and they think health care is a human right. Okay, but if health care is a human right, that means another man is being forced to pay for your health care. That is bullying. Is it not? If I walked up to you on the street, and demanded $1,000 with the threat of imprisonment to pay for my health care, is that not bullying?

Even if I was a nice guy, with a life threatening disease, I am not allowed to do that. But when the government does it, it becomes morally righteous somehow. That's my problem with politics, it twists peoples minds. When a private person does it it's theft, when the government does it it's taxation. When a private person does it it's murder, when the government does it it's a "casualty of war." It's a double standard that so many feed into, seemingly unaware that they're feeding into it.

Government is supposedly there to enforce the rules of society and maintain harmony- harmony that would supposedly revert to chaos without them. Yet the very laws and social order they are meant to maintain, are most often violated by the government itself.

I didn't say poor people were entitled in that post brotha. And yes, I do think liberals are bullies. I think they feel differently, but how else do you explain a group of people that constantly wants to use government force to tell other people what to do?

To use a very popular example, single-payer health care. Liberals want this because they don't trust insurance companies, and they think health care is a human right. Okay, but if health care is a human right, that means another man is being forced to pay for your health care. That is bullying. Is it not? If I walked up to you on the street, and demanded $1,000 with the threat of imprisonment to pay for my health care, is that not bullying?

Even if I was a nice guy, with a life threatening disease, I am not allowed to do that. But when the government does it, it becomes morally righteous somehow. That's my problem with politics, it twists peoples minds. When a private person does it it's theft, when the government does it it's taxation. When a private person does it it's murder, when the government does it it's a "casualty of war." It's a double standard that so many feed into, seemingly unaware that they're feeding into it.

Government is supposedly there to enforce the rules of society and maintain harmony- harmony that would supposedly revert to chaos without them. Yet the very laws and social order they are meant to maintain, are most often violated by the government itself.

PS- love you 2 brotha, love you 2

No, it's not. Someone else is paying for YOUR healthcare too. This isn't a straight up "take" situation. They aren't just "taking" your $1000.00 There's give and take in the situation. That's a pretty awful way to look at it. The way you're looking at it is pretty selfish, IMO.

I'll say this: this whole "entitlement is bad" mindset, as it relates to healthcare, is mind boggling to me. Being a Canadian (who would describe himself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal - does that fit in one of the two check boxes?), I have ZERO issue with covering the expense of someone else's healthcare, so long as it's related to their health and well being, knowing that the system will be there for me when and if I need it.

No bodies forcing you to take federal aid, could always choose not to apply for it

I apologize in advance for semi trolling you

love the white text. I've probably done some troll like behavior in my day, so what goes around comes around :)

I understand that I'm not forced to take federal aid. But just the existence of it creates problems for myself personally, and the economy as a whole. As I've always said, I don't think these programs should just be ended tomorrow. Hell no. But if we don't ween ourselves off of them, it's going to lead to our destruction as an economic superpower. We need to break away from these socialist attitudes as a nation, or they will be our downfall. And I hate to use the word socialist because it's become so damn muddled, but I can't think of a better word for it. Just the attitude that the poor need to be helped and the rich are greedy bastards... it has to stop. America's wealth was built on our poor being ambitious and free, not by government redistributing wealth and treating poor people like victims.

And now you've witnessed my amazing superpower in action, to take any innocuous comment and turn it into a long winded, tangential rant. 8)

No, it's not. Someone else is paying for YOUR healthcare too. This isn't a straight up "take" situation. They aren't just "taking" your $1000.00 There's give and take in the situation. That's a pretty awful way to look at it. The way you're looking at it is pretty selfish, IMO.

I'll say this: this whole "entitlement is bad" mindset, as it relates to healthcare, is mind boggling to me. Being a Canadian (who would describe himself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal - does that fit in one of the two check boxes?), I have ZERO issue with covering the expense of someone else's healthcare, so long as it's related to their health and well being, knowing that the system will be there for me when and if I need it.

Well, if you're rich, it is mostly just a take situation. You are going to be paying in much more than you'd ever take out.

As for the bolded section. The system you are describing can be perfectly applied to private insurance. You pay in, and your money goes towards the health care of others. And when you need it, the system will be there for you.

The difference is, a private company doesn't force others to pay in, who don't want to pay in. It doesn't force people to purchase insurance, who don't want to purchase insurance. It doesn't tax people for my insurance, who don't want to pay for my insurance.

You have zero issues with covering the expense of someone elses health care, but what if I do? What if someone else does? You call me selfish, but I think your side is being far more selfish. Forget what I want, forget what supporters of the free market want, forget what anyone wants who doesn't agree with you. You guys know what's best for the health care system, and if someone else doesn't like it, they are just selfish, ignorant rubes.

You have zero issues with covering the expense of someone elses health care, but what if I do? What if someone else does? You call me selfish, but I think your side is being far more selfish. Forget what I want, forget what supporters of the free market want, forget what anyone wants who doesn't agree with you. You guys know what's best for the health care system, and if someone else doesn't like it, they are just selfish, ignorant rubes.

As a supporter of the free market, you might flip that argument around on me. "You free market people think you know what's best for health care, forget what I want, forget what supporters of single-payer want. You guys want a free market, and if someone wants government regulation, they are just ignorant rubes."

No, by supporting a free market I am saying precisely that I DON'T know what you want, or what's best for you. I am allowing you to make your own decision, to see what's best for you, and make that choice. In the end, through trillions of individual market exchanges, the health care system that emerges will be far more multifaceted and dynamic than anything the government could dream of. Not because the government isn't as smart as the free market, but because it's impossible for government to simulate what happens on the market. The choices of consumers affecting the choices of business, the savvy entrepreneurs predicting the preferences of consumers. Price competition, innovation, specialization, all designed and propagated with the constant goal of satisfying the every demand of us, the regular people. The drive for profit pushing us forward, but the fear of loss keeping us grounded. A bunch of politicians sitting in a room, no matter how smart or how well intentioned, cannot stand up to this force of human brilliance that exists in the free marketplace.

I'm sick of hearing about the flaws of the market, or how it can't work in health care or roads or for the environment. The free market is one of the most awe-inspiring, jaw dropping, breath taking features of humanity. Our ability to cooperate, work with each other, and work for each other.. it's one of the defining differences between human beings and animals. If humans someday traverse the milky way galaxy, it will be because we finally stopped dabbling in government markets and fully embraced economic and personal FREEDOM! :)

I'll say this: this whole "entitlement is bad" mindset, as it relates to healthcare, is mind boggling to me. Being a Canadian (who would describe himself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal - does that fit in one of the two check boxes?), I have ZERO issue with covering the expense of someone else's healthcare, so long as it's related to their health and well being, knowing that the system will be there for me when and if I need it.

You know, I have a ton of issues with the healthcare system in this country, and honestly how much of our $ goes towards other people's interests as well, but at the end of the day I'm for our socially funded system. It's no different than paying insurance. Maybe right now I'm healthy as an ox, but it doesn't take much of a hospital stay to rack up a shitload of cash. I can live with what I pay if the system is going to take care of me when I need it.

When people claim laissez-faire and deregulation caused the 2008 recession, all they are doing is exposing their ignorance on the subject. It's like saying a lack of steroids caused Eddie Guerrero's death. No, it was too much steroids that caused his death, just like it was too much government involvement that caused both the housing bubble and the 2008 crash. And it is again too much government which is the culprit of the coming economic collapse, which will be much bigger than anything we've seen in decades. In time you will see the bond market bubble pop and the US dollar depreciate in value. Unemployment will rise into the double digits. And I'm sure people like you will be there blaming capitalism, yet again, for the problems that government has created.

The biggest culprits of the housing bubble/collapse were the following:

1- The federal reserve. By far the biggest share of the blame goes to them. It's their pumping money into the system that feeds asset bubbles, and creates the boom-bust cycle that most blame on capitalism. This was explained in F.A. Hayek's theory of the business cycle, which won him the Nobel prize in economics back in the 70's.

2- Anything after the Fed is a distant second, but Fannie and Freddie Mac, two government agencies, come in second. They were actively handing out subprime-mortgages all throughout the 2000's, knowing that if they succeeded they kept the profits, but if they failed the government would bail them out.

3- Government laws that forced banks to give mortgages to unqualified borrowers. If a bank was found to not be giving out loans to poor people, they were in violation of US government policy. Poor people who had no chance of paying back the loans, were given loans, thanks to US government mandate.

With these facts on the table, how could you sit there with a straight face and say we had a laissez faire banking system?

no its not. the manufacturers have to pay it so whether they decide to carry over the extra tax to the price of unit is on them. 2nd, then the dentists decide if they want to carry over the charges to there patients. 3rd it doesnt matter because one medical device i would imagine could be used on over multiple thousands of patients...so multiple thousands of patients paying 100 dollars? thats like .02 cents each person.

no its not. the manufacturers have to pay it so whether they decide to carry over the extra tax to the price of unit is on them. 2nd, then the dentists decide if they want to carry over the charges to there patients. 3rd it doesnt matter because one medical device i would imagine could be used on over multiple thousands of patients...so multiple thousands of patients paying 100 dollars? thats like .02 cents each person.

It includes all supplies used both clinically and in the labs that make crowns, bridges, implants, dentures, etc. And yes the cost always gets passed on.

Banks would never act the way they acted if they were operating in the free market. Banks would not give out 100,000 dollar housing loans to people who couldn't afford to pay it back if the government wasn't pushing them to and guaranteeing the loans. It doesn't make logical sense that a bank would behave that way. Only government regulation could incentivize people to make such stupid decisions. And that includes by the federal reserve, which was pumping money into the banks the entire time and artificially forcing down interest rates.

Banks would never act the way they acted if they were operating in the free market. Banks would not give out 100,000 dollar housing loans to people who couldn't afford to pay it back if the government wasn't pushing them to and guaranteeing the loans. It doesn't make logical sense that a bank would behave that way. Only government regulation could incentivize people to make such stupid decisions. And that includes by the federal reserve, which was pumping money into the banks the entire time and artificially forcing down interest rates.

You're a lunatic. The repeal of Glass-Steagall (harsh regulations on banks 'gambling' their money) started this junk. They were lending to whoever, then packaging known bad debt and selling it off. The "credit raters" were purposefully rating everything as "Good" (more regulations on that industry would have stopped it) and so people were buying up "Good" debt that was actually not good.

Please, please, I beg you, watch that movie. They explain it much better than I can.

Banks would never act the way they acted if they were operating in the free market. Banks would not give out 100,000 dollar housing loans to people who couldn't afford to pay it back if the government wasn't pushing them to and guaranteeing the loans. It doesn't make logical sense that a bank would behave that way. Only government regulation could incentivize people to make such stupid decisions. And that includes by the federal reserve, which was pumping money into the banks the entire time and artificially forcing down interest rates.

"It must be the govts fault because the market failed"

^thats an extremely lazy point of view. Govt played a role in the crisis w/o a doubt but bankers, rating agencies, and mortgage originators share plenty of the blame.

You know, I have a ton of issues with the healthcare system in this country, and honestly how much of our $ goes towards other people's interests as well, but at the end of the day I'm for our socially funded system. It's no different than paying insurance. Maybe right now I'm healthy as an ox, but it doesn't take much of a hospital stay to rack up a shitload of cash. I can live with what I pay if the system is going to take care of me when I need it.

+1. I may never get a return on my investment but I know it will be there for me if I ever need it.